Our long term plan to make GitLab as fast as possible with Vue and Webpack - <AUTHOR> https://about.gitlab.com/2017/02/06/vue-big-plan/ <comment><USER3> One of the biggest reasons I favor React is that it's much easier to add a templating language to a programming language (i.e. JSX) than the other way around. Every construct for making decisions based on your data, traversing your data, etc. is more cumbersome and harder to validate in handlebars or whatever identical looking templating language the community came up with this week.

I also am strongly against string references to model properties in your template. Again, it's much better to use tools that provide some static validation of what you're doing.

Give me React with TypeScript to help me make sure I'm passing around what I said I'm expecting to receive at each point as features are changed and added, and I'll be in business.

Honestly, I use React in spite of my opinion of Facebook.

<comment><USER4> JSX frustrates me. When did we suddenly start thinking <> syntax was desirable again? When did the complexity of combining markup syntax and a programming language become a good idea? Why are we forcing this crazy complexity into every language and every IDE / code editor out there?

I much prefer react with standard functions e.g.

        var element = DOM.p({id : "thing"}, DOM.div(), DOM.div());

You can use an API like this in every language without any hacks. It doesn't hurt readability or productivity and it has normal expression evaluation semantics. JSX isn't syntactic sugar, its a gross "syntactic artificial flavour" because it doesn't make the syntax easier, it just makes it look something a bit like HTML but with dozens of subtle differences e.g. attribute names, attributes values, tag closing rules, special extensions etc.

<comment><USER5> Frankly, yes it does hurt readability. I used to have your mindset and you're making the assumption that what looks okay when creating one single element will look fine when nesting dozens (which react excels at).

JSX is well defined and does not support any of HTML's looseness. It's predictable. It makes the code easier to follow. And if you don't want to use it, you don't have to. I see no issue.

<comment><USER4> > will look fine when nesting dozens

Nesting dozens of items is fine. That single line was more of an HN comment format limitation. This might be a better judge of readability:

C#

[http://imgur.com/a/nVWdC](http://imgur.com/a/nVWdC)

JSX

[http://imgur.com/a/qwAfD](http://imgur.com/a/qwAfD)

You may prefer one or the other but most would admit they are pretty similar its just that the former hasn't needed an entire new language inlined into it. Given JSX has all its angle brackets, end tags and escaping expressions with {}, it can actually be more verbose.

<comment><USER6> I'm a C# guy and even I would say the JSX is far more readable there. I'm sure there's a law somewhere that says the less abstraction the better, that can be applied in this case.

<comment><USER4> I don't mind if people prefer JSX its just a shocking cost - <USER2> language ASTs, build tools and IDEs for something that rhymes with html but is really only a couple of characters away from standard language constructs.

> I'm sure there's a law somewhere that says the less abstraction the better, > that can be applied in this case

JSX is literally an extra level of abstraction. You are not writing html but calling a function to create a data structure element and JSX totally obfuscates that. I pity poor programming newbies trying to understand what JSX is actually doing "so you are telling me <div> is a function...but?".

In the functional form its just your normal language, nothing is disguised, everyone can see what it is doing and no post-processing magic is required e.g.

        public class DOM
        {
            public static IElement div(object attributes, params IElement[] children)
            {
                return new Element(...);
            }
        }

<comment><USER7> I agree with everything you say, except the "shocking cost" part. Its all a matter of perspective.

You would have to write the transpiler anyway, since on a larger team if you're working with a designer, you would probably get HTML from them and soon get tired of manually translating it to function calls.

I'd bet this is how JSX got started in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> You want to make your site fast?

Generate the markup on the server and send it down to the client! It's post- modern web development. Back to black.

You don't need 100 KB of code to spit down a table of data or show someone a directory listing of their github project. You don't even need an SPA, bunny.

And for goodness sake, when you do need to do anything in javascript, you can use document.createElement and document.createDocumentFragment. These are perfect 1:1 browser APIs that allow you to do everything you've ever wanted, there's no magic, they call directly into the browser engine to give you what you need.

If you want to increase performance, start first by measuring everything. Time to first byte. Time to DOMContentLoaded. The page onload event. window.performance timings; do real user monitoring, not TODO app benchmarks on the latest framework flavor of the week.

The entire web community needs a healthy dose of pragmatism. But it's okay, it gives me extra work. I really enjoy doing freelance performance work and telling everyone which code/library/framework is to blame for performance issues and rewriting everything so simply. Show people what works and you'll find they shut up real quick.

<comment><USER9> > Generate the markup on the server and send it down to the client!

You are so smart, how come no one thought about that before.

<comment><USER10> Obviously they did, hence the "It's post-modern web development." No need for snark.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really think for most cases you only need a view library instead of a heavy application framework. There are only a few cases there something as heavy as Angular or Ember is justified and in many scenarios a thinner view layer like Vue, React, Inferno etc is much better suited. Most of the web is simple enough to not need fancy http features or complex routing support. Everyone rushed to Angular without considering if they needed such a heavy library. How Angular even runs on mobile is anyone's guess.

<comment><USER12> IMO this is not true at all. Any non-trivial SPA not based on a framework will end up inventing one eventually that solves the very same problems which were already solved for you. Examples being history management and back button, state management (especially if you prefer immutability), and server side rendering.

On the other hand, if the app is not an SPA, you probably don't need the framework. Both history and state gets managed on the server to an extent. However, most apps are better as SPAs rather than these hybrids. Informational websites being the exception.

<comment><USER13> I agree with this. If you're augmenting a traditional request/html-response web app with some JavaScript functionality, a lighter weight view library fits the bill nicely. But, if you're developing a SPA that consumes an API, you might really enjoy what a more holistic framework provides in terms of code structure, front-end data management, and just general guidance on how to do certain standard things, like basic CRUD.

<comment><USER14> Jumping on the bandwagon here...

The key is the single directional data flow. It was purposed in Flux, made better in Redux, and is used in Angular as well.

If you're writing a large web app, the dependency injection part of Angular 2+ isolates your modules much better than Redux. You won't need a single file with action creators. Each service can contain its own information.

Though not a feature of Angular, Observables are the baked in method of HTTP. Using Observables are far superior to Promises. You can compose Observables and make the callback part of javascript a lot easier on you. You can also cancel Observables, which is not possible with promises.

One of the things I miss with React is JSX, however, it's not so bad. There is even a mobile framework called nativescript that allows you to write Angular 2+ code with Native UI.

People jumping on the Angular hate train are mostly riding the vapor from Angular 1.X. The new framework has been done very well.

<comment><USER15> Also jumping in.

The biggest problems with Angular2+ is that they called it Angular, and had a terrible release.

It's not Angular, it's a completely different framework. They rode their own hype train and it's made searching for tutorials, examples, libraries much more difficult.

I was lucky in that we didn't start our project until after the true release happened, but having such a long alpha, beta, and release candidate stage really hurt momentum. Articles and tutorials written before June 16' can be completely useless with the amount of breaking changes.

With that all said I'm really liking Angular 2+ with ngrx (redux). The problems only really appear when I'm trying to bring in other libraries as they haven't been written well.

<comment><USER16> > They rode their own hype train

This is my single biggest problem with Angular 2. It's not Angular, but in calling it "Angular 2," they effectively killed off a powerful framework which had a promising future, all while basically hamstringing Angular 2 from the start for (at least) the reasons you mentioned.

<comment><USER7> Its actually worse now, since they decided to call all versions of angular "just Angular".

I'm not sure what the reasoning is behind this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'd only heard of Vue as a name before this, but I followed the link to the documentation, which looks fantastic:

        <div id="app">
          {{ message }}
        </div>

        var app = new Vue({
          el: '#app',
          data: {
            message: 'Hello Vue!'
          }
        })

> Hello Vue!

> _This looks pretty similar to just rendering a string template, but Vue has > done a lot of work under the hood. The data and the DOM are now linked, and > everything is now reactive. How do we know? Just open your browser's > JavaScript console (right now, on this page) and set app.message to a > different value._

I guess that didn't take any extra work to setup, since it's a fair assumption the Vue docs are rendered with Vue (!) - but a really easy yet nicely motivating introduction.

Obviously this isn't _too_ tricky with 'vanilla' JS, but there's certainly more ceremony involved, and I'm sure the templates can be more complex such that the JS/Vue contrast would be much greater.

<comment><USER18> vue feels to me like a condensed knockout. i still use knockout on some projects, but have used vue on a couple new ones too. as much as I'd like to see knockout progress - simplify a bit more to be more compact like vue, i'll take vue if that never happens.

anyone using knockout looking to migrate, vue is a worthy spiritual successor imo.

<comment><USER19> Do you end up using View Models in Vue just like you might in Knockout? To me, a big benefit of React is making that translation step implicit; I like the _idea_ of View Models but in practice I'm just schlepping a lot of data around between the models and view models.

<comment><USER18> It _feels_ like I'm using view models, but I don't think I am. The idea of a 'vue object' ties some metadata, data and methods together, which seems like a somewhat tighter coupling, but also a bit more pragmatic (less "schlepping").

I'm no expert in either, but one of the things I liked about knockout early on was that it was pretty straightforward to decorate existing pages with knockout functionality, and vue has been the same way. Technically react may be the same way, but it never felt as easy as vue or ko. (I've only recently done some 'hello world' stuff in react, so again, no expert) I do have production code with knockout in multiple project spanning back about 4 years or so, so that's where my current comfort-zone is, but vue is starting to replace that.

[https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#Knockout](https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#Knockout) has a very short comparison, but they link to a "todo list" gist here comparing the two sets of code: [https://gist.github.com/chrisvfritz/9e5f2d6826af00fcbace7be8...](https://gist.github.com/chrisvfritz/9e5f2d6826af00fcbace7be8f6dccb89)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sadly I think the problem of GitLab's sloweness is not the UI framework :( We are 3-5 users on gitlab ce and use 3GB of memory + 4 CPU cores (vCPUs from XEN) and it still feels slow. Even big Java Applikations use less memory, for that amount of users.

<comment><USER21> I recently needed a simple self-hosted git web interface for about 3 people, and I only have a cheap 2GB RAM VPS that also runs other things. After looking at gitlab's requirements, I didn't even try.

Setting up the gitea docker container was so easy ([https://docs.gitea.io/en- us/install-with-docker/](https://docs.gitea.io/en-us/install-with-docker/)) and it only takes like 160 MB of RAM plus it's super fast.

Then again, I only needed the more basic features, so I doubt that's gitlab's target audience anyway.

<comment><USER22> There's also gitbucket built in scala. The UI is much nicer than gitea.

[https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket- news/gitbucket/2017/01...](https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket- news/gitbucket/2017/01/29/gitbucket-4.9.html)

running it is simply _java -jar gitbucket.war_

<comment><USER21> I don't know, that UI looks a little too "mobile first" to me (for something I would only use on my computer).

EDIT: also, the colors seem quite dull from those screenshots

<comment><USER23> heh heh.. no real way to win. [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues/6057](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/6057)

<comment><USER21> Nothing wrong with responsive UI, just don't create something meant for phones and then just scale it up to a larger screen. Which is what bootstrap, material design etc. often end up looking like.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Vue.js is just a better option for every-day development in smaller and mid- sized teams, it gives more freedom working with arbitrary html, which is huge, it also gives easy start - you don't need compiler to use Vue across your legacy codebase. React is a good thing if you are a hard-core fulltime frontend dev in a big team, I guess. That's why potential of Vue.js popularity is ~25-30% of jQuery worldwide usage while React will probably might get 5-10% at most - that's just my impression after using both React and Vue. [http://pixeljets.com/blog/why-we-chose-vuejs-over- react](http://pixeljets.com/blog/why-we-chose-vuejs-over-react)

<comment><USER25> I'm assuming in the web dev world "legacy codebase" is used very loosely here.

In my company, "legacy codebase" is referring to C code from the 70s that is still ticking today.

<comment><USER26> That's right, in the web dev world "legacy codebase" is 3 or 4 years old, created by a previous team who all quit once they finished the rewrite of the previous "legacy codebase".

<comment><USER27> 3 or 4 years? Seems generous. Lately it seems anything more than a year old is "legacy" or "technical debt" because the team is now using other frameworks or libraries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Something went terribly wrong in our field ....

"On GitLab, our pages would load an average of 20kb on each page load versus the full JavaScript file size of 800kb+."

What exatly takes 800kb? I don't see a 3d animation/game on every gitlab page...

IMHO the solution to all this craziness is just generate small mostly-static page quickly and do not have 200 onLoad() functions.

<comment><USER29> Our entire JS is 800kb not each page. So we are splitting it on a per page basis. Everything including issues, MRs, file browsing. There was 800kb of JS in the entire app before I joined as the first FE Eng. There is jQuery and other libraries and our own code. That was the reason we wanted to remove Turbolinks. So we don't load all the JS for the entire app at once. We want to load things on demand.

Funny thing, I have built a full fledged production 2d/3d application in JS. It was less complex than what GL has to do, and it was 670kb fully minified and obfuscated. We are constantly looking for ways at GL to make our file size smaller and our JS faster. It is something we are actively putting our time towards.

<comment><USER30> Why do you need to use Turbolinks, when you can just do a normal page load, and set the correct cache headers for your javascript bundles, to stop the browser re-downloading the same script.

<comment><USER31> This isn't specific to GitLab or GitHub, but turbolinks, pjax, and friends are really useful when you have a lot of setup that can be shared between pages, i.e. initiating a websocket connection, rendering a header with notifications and an avatar in it, decompressing and parsing your js and css, etc., and you don't want to implement a single page app.

When I refresh the GitLab sign-in page in Chromium, I see that the initial page load takes 40ms to parse css, 250ms to parse and execute js, and then another 70ms after DOMContentLoaded. This is with a warm cache. It's not unreasonable to think that turbolinks might save about 300ms on page loads, which is a respectable performance boost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Can someone explain why someone would choose Vue over React (or one of the clones)? When I looked at the docs for Vue it reminded me of my Backbone days.

<comment><USER33> If you already know react and are happy using it, then there's no reason to use Vue.

But if (like me) you were never quite able to figure out how to use React (especially all the build tooling that's suggested in every tutorial), then Vue is worth a look as it's incredibly simple to get started with and easier to learn.

I find it especially appeals to people coming from a place of familiarity with html and css (whereas react seems to appeal to people with more of a straight- up programming background). YMMV

<comment><USER34> > easier to learn

I think this is problematic because people don't differentiate between React and the React ecosystem. Plain old React is just as easy (probably easier) than learning Vue. I always recommend the official React tutorial ([https://facebook.github.io/react/tutorial/tutorial.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/tutorial/tutorial.html)) before even thinking about Redux or Webpack or whatever.

<comment><USER33> Of course it's subjective, and different people coming from different backgrounds / experience levels find different things easier than others.

But... that tutorial you say you like to show people utilizes jsx, which needs to be compiled with something (right? Or does react do the compilation automatically at runtime now and I missed that memo?).

And for people coming from a place where they are very comfortable and familiar with html and css, and maybe a light sprinkling of jquery on top, Vue is _way_ more approachable than the tutorial you linked to.

<comment><USER35> create-react-app is our recommended way to build simple React apps (and some complex ones). It has no configuration and is designed to be very easy to set up.

(My understanding is that Vue templates also need to be compiled -- is that incorrect?)

I wrote the tutorial. Could you give any suggestions on how I could make it easier to get into?

<comment><USER36> Not the OP, but I'll state the obvious on their behalf.

The number one thing that you (and Facebook) could do to help people learn React, and combat the perception that it requires overly complex tooling, is write a tutorial that shows how to use React entirely in-browser without any build toolchain. A static HTML file, some <script> tags pointing at a CDN — done. No distractions, nothing to download, nothing to install, nothing to run, just a JavaScript library that makes it easier to write view templates.

It would make it even easier to get into if that tutorial were written entirely in ES5, but you could use babel-standalone if you felt that JSX and ES6 were important enough.

<comment><USER35> Thanks for replying! Our official tutorial was actually exactly that for _years_, but it didn't seem to help much. I get the sentiment though and maybe we can find another way to make it work.

<comment><USER5> Offering an alternative point of view: I would really like if the tutorial at least pointed towards documentation on what do I need and why, and the right way to set these things up between Babel and Webpack, as well as Typescript.

Maybe my use case is rarer, I don't know, but if I want to do things right, I want to understand what I'm setting up. Do I really need babel? If I use Typescript, do I _still_ need it? etc...

I understand this doesn't have much to do with React per se but if these components are a definitive part of the ecosystem people work with, there is value in at least telling people where to find a high quality explanation for how they fit together.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> It's good to see vue.js getting some love. I believe it would be the preferred Web framework these days if it had backing from FB like React does. Too many people fall into the trap of believing a tech is the best just because some big Corp sponsors it. I fell for Angular once for the same reason.

<comment><USER38> disagree. React has amazing reasons why it is fundamentally better than most of the other libraries for projects at scale.

I think vue is a perfect fit for gitlab but not quite perfect for facebook or a more complex web app on the front end.

<comment><USER39> Are there any specific reasons you can point to, rather then a blanket statement?

<comment><USER40> I'll take a stab, although I don't share the same absolute stance.

I've run the gambit when it comes to types of front-end projects. The React community has more focus on scaling React for large teams and companies. This isn't to say Vue can't do any of this, but there is a clear focus in the React community. I need to do isomorphic rendering because of SEO, there is a lot of React documentation on that and very little for Vue. I need static analysis for my code to prevent errors, Flow answers that. I need a replayable state for debugging errors, Redux gives you that.

None of what I mention about React is its sole domain. You can list off many alternatives.

Reading through why people choose Vue, many common needs come up. The one that I find interesting is needing a system that Designers can understand because they code up the HTML and CSS. I doubt that is something that comes up with React teams.

In my opinion, if you require a framework, Vue and React are two great options. It comes down to various small differences about your team needs. (Please stay away from Angular though.)

<comment><USER41> I love both React and Vue, but I feel the need to step in and defend Vue a little here.

Of the 3 points you listed, Vue has a section in the official documentation dedicated to Server-Side Rendering, ditto for using it with Typescript for static typing, and it even gives you replayable state with Vuex (the official redux-style library for Vue).

They really are both great options.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > For example, the profile page could be potentially very light, and there > would be no reason for that if someone is linked directly to the profile > page; it should load every single piece of Javascript in our project.

There are plenty of ways to do that with single Page apps; it's not a great argument against all single page apps, just poorly designed ones.

<comment><USER43> Yet much easier to do by avoiding a single page app all together.

<comment><USER44> Is there anything meaningfully different between a site made up of a number of discrete single page apps and one built with Vue?

<comment><USER45> Sure! Multiple discrete single page apps are simpler to develop and maintain, especially for apps that have a lot of dependence on the backend. IMO it promotes a healthy (aka obvious) separation of concerns and provides flexibility. A UI framework like Vue helps us cut a lot of corners when we need to, but no doubt, not every problem needs to be solved using the framework, the ability to retreat to vanilla when you can is hugely underrated IMO, especially given the _promising_ future of vanilla.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> There's an entire cottage industry of 3 to 5-year old series Bish startups porting Backbone // jQuery apps over to more modern frameworks. We are moving ours over to React at Plangrid (mostly done), Gusto is mostly done with their migration as well. Would be interesting to figure out how many startups are in this category.

<comment><USER47> We at engageSPARK moved from jQuery mess to Ractive.js, which we're quite happy with. The UI components don't cause us much stress, because they're conceptually simple. What gives us headaches now is the data flow (stores and actions using reflux), so we're now thinking about remodeling this, and while doing so moving to redux. The particular technology is less often the problem, but how it's used, and that's been true for us, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Misleading title, from the article:

> We are not rewriting GitLab's frontend entirely in Vue.

</comment><comment><USER49> Sorry to be negative but GitLab's performance is embarassing :/ It is so slow and it's not clear why. Is this because of rails? Just seems very poorly engineered.

<comment><USER50> GitHub is a rails site. Does the same thing, and is fast.

I don't know where people get the notion that rails is slow.

<comment><USER23> there is a difference between scaling a rails application when you are running a cloud business and running a packaged application on-site. I'm pretty sure nobody is running gitlab backed by databases like AWS RDS or something.

I have shipped large rails apps as packaged software for on-site install (using jruby). It's not easy.

<comment><USER50> I'm not sure what your point is. Rails isn't any slower when deployed on-site, nor is it more likely to be a bottleneck.

If your local database is slow and the app code requires lots of DB resources, then sure...but that's the app, not rails.

<comment><USER51> I think the point is that Gitlab faces unique challenges because anyone can host Gitlab on their own hardware, so they're always trying to solve performance problems in a way that any typical user could also solve it.

Github on the other hand can use strategies solely targeted at their SaaS performance. It seems that Github also maintains more control over their enterprise version than Gitlab but I'm not 100% sure there.

<comment><USER52> [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org) takes 4 seconds to load on my machine with a gigabit wired connection.

[https://github.com/github](https://github.com/github) takes ~2.2 seconds, but by about 1 second has most of the information on screen and is simply waiting for the activity graphs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm not aware of the performance bottlenecks with GitLab, but are there any plans to speed up the backend as well, such as moving to a faster Ruby implementation?

<comment><USER54> There's another github/gitlab clone called gigs that's implemented in go. Never used it myself, but if you want to save server resources I guess it's an option.

<comment><USER55> *Gogs

<comment><USER54> Thank you, indeed it's gogs ( [https://gogs.io/](https://gogs.io/) )

Damn you autocorrect!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm happy to see Vue in a project that I recognize.

To all the people arguing about JSX: Vue 2 supports it. [http://vuejs.org/v2/guide/syntax.html#ad](http://vuejs.org/v2/guide/syntax.html#ad)

</comment><comment><USER57> No mention of TypeScript - I wonder why ? It's such a powerful tool when your code base scales.

<comment><USER58> We didn't go with TypeScript because we were burnt by CoffeeScript before. People don't know TypeScript or CoffeeScript nearly as much as they know vanilla/ES6 JavaScript. It's easier to hire for and easier to get contributors for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> In webpack.config.js

> if (IS_PRODUCTION) { > config.devtool = 'source-map';

Ouch! This will make for a huge bundle. See [https://webpack.github.io/docs/configuration.html#devtool](https://webpack.github.io/docs/configuration.html#devtool)

Merge request here: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/9028](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/merge_requests/9028)

<comment><USER60> Surely the sourcemap is externalized to a separate file and only loaded if you attach a debugger, if the sourcemap is even deployed to prod together with the bundle at all (unlikely in my experience). 'source-map' produces much nicer traces than 'cheap-module-source-map', and both type of maps are going to be huge in any case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Are you using Webpack directly with Rails? I'm curious how your development environment works.

<comment><USER45> Yep! webpack-rails gem [https://github.com/mipearson/webpack- rails](https://github.com/mipearson/webpack-rails)

<comment><USER61> Awesome, thanks! We're using this too, but have been thinking about making the switch to [https://github.com/rails/webpacker](https://github.com/rails/webpacker)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> GitLab rushing good news about frontend when backend crashes is good short term PR support plan.

<comment><USER63> We have separate teams working on frontend and backend.

Here's a list of performance issues which we intend to work on: [https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues?scope=all&utf...](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab- ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=&state=opened&author_username=pcarranza&label_name%5B%5D=performance)

Most of them are scheduled for 9.0 or 9.1

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> sounds like he never gave vue a try because thats also how i felt before trying vuejs.

but once you go vue, you will be very happy you did. i see a lot of ex-react devs who tell similar stories, myself.

with the sudden rise of vue and just how fast vue is gaining traction, given the trends and lifecycle of frameworks, i wouldnt be surprised if vue over takes react as de facto of frontend frameworks soon. it really makes development much pleasant and faster.

</comment><comment><USER65> Wouldn't ignoring the code have the same outcome if you upgrade servers next year? Client devices will become faster too in that timeframe too.

</comment><comment><USER66> > as our current development takes loads of time to refresh the page while > developing GitLab

Really? What's 'loads of time' here?

</comment><comment><USER67> VueJS is a lightweight version of Angular but has the same pitfalls when its comes to being isomorphic.

React is an engineers overkill solution. JSX is bluck.

I use mithril.

</comment><comment><USER68> Webpack is a mistake imo. Accidental complexity everywhere.

</comment><comment><USER69> The escalating abuse of the word "awesome" is like the overuse of dynamic compression in music. When every expression is fever-pitched, there's little room for interesting expression.

I also notice that the most shameless abuse of "awesome" seems to come from public-facing software developers, e.g. community managers and the like. It's become some kind of advertisement for a bland, safe, comfortable community where nothing is risked, and competition is frowned upon.

All right, I may have gone a little too wide with that, but AUGH, we need to try way harder to increase our expressive range if we're going to be writing articles that aren't exhausting to read.

<comment><USER70> Make "radical" viable again?

<comment><USER71> Bodacious.

<comment><USER72> Tubular?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> We at [http://www.reportdash.com](http://www.reportdash.com) uses Backbone + Backbone Layout Manager + Jade

Every time I see a post like this , I feel sad for being less cool. I try to learn a bit of the mentioned cool framework. Then I realise, how awesome my current set up is.

<comment><USER74> > Add On: Custom Domain with SSL - $50 per month

Great way to discourage companies from handling their data online in a secure way.

Seriously with SSLs as cheap as $4.99 per year, your pricing feels like its 1999 all over again!

<comment><USER75> > with SSLs as cheap as $4.99 per year

*As cheap as Free Ninety Nine

[https://letsencrypt.org/](https://letsencrypt.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Vue really has the best of both worlds. You can use it like old-style angular or take the component approach. You can just include the 71kb minified script and take off or you can use a build system with components - Take a look at Vue-cli: [https://github.com/vuejs/vue-cli](https://github.com/vuejs/vue-cli)</comment>


United removes first-class passenger to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-united-low-priority-passenger-20170412-story.html <comment><USER4> Travelling in the US or with US airlines is not looking very good right now. Not just the United incident(s) but also TSA, Trump travel restrictions, flights constantly overbooked, massively late etc.

I wonder if it will start impacting traveller and tourism numbers at some point. I think anyone who doesn't really need to be in the US and/or is planning travelling with kids is likely to have some second thoughts at this point.

Recently Canada's girl guides cancelled all trips to the US: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/canadian-girl- gui...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/14/canadian-girl-guides- cancel-trips-us-fears-trump-travel-restrictions/).

I wonder if this is a first step of a large trend yet to develop.

<comment><USER5> Anecdotally I've noticed that for like 5 years now my friends and family have a pretty severe aversion to flying anywhere for anything.

From needing to show up hours before the flight, to the invasive screenings, the insane restrictions on what you can and cannot bring, the sentiment that if you check any baggage it's basically as good as gone, the ever increasing cost, the delays, and even things like the worry about if your ticket will actually get you on the damn plane!

If I have to choose between a 3 hour flight, and a 12 hour drive, the 12 hour drive is what I pick almost every time now. Ignoring "disasters" (massive accident, theft, etc...) I'm going to have all my stuff, I know i'm not going to waste hundreds of dollars on a ticket that will get "rejected" at the last second, i'll have a car when I get to my destination, i can bring whatever the fuck I want, and it's a fraction of the cost.

<comment><USER6> You're painting a darker picture than what it really is :) Most of the time, things go smoothly and flights are very affordable. I find it amazing that as a middle class person I can fly pretty much anywhere in the world. I can live with the inconvenience of being scolded by the TSA and US customs officers.

Actually, I wonder how much this will last considering that fossil energy will likely cost more and more and that more and more people from developing countries start to travel too.

<comment><USER7> Given that we have likely hit peak demand for fossil fuel (the theory being that the demand for fossil fuel has peaked before we have reached peak supply), this is unlikely. Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again. Or so goes the theory..

In short, flight prices are unlikely to be severely effected by oil prices again.

<comment><USER8> > Oil prices are unlikely to ever reach the highs of $100+ ever again.

Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down dramatically, so I would argue the contrary.

When the current supplies start to dwindle, I would not be surprised to see oil prices strike $200 or more a barrel.

The oil crash removed the cost of exploration from oil prices, so current prices are no longer a indication of probable future supply.

There's a multi-year lag between exploration and crude coming to market. While futures/derivatives can cover that exploration for future crude extraction, there's a growing spectre of competitive alternative energy that will likely reduce the attractiveness of crude – i.e. there being higher risk of relative oil obsolescence, the anticipated return on futures diminishes, meaning less money going into exploration, even with what will be present-day high prices.

Given the lag in investment, I suspect that when the "spike" comes people will look as much to ramping up more immediate alternatives (solar, wind) than exploring for oil.

The above is all speculation of course, but the 5-10 year market forces at work are not pushing towards lower or even stable oil prices, but towards much higher ones – at least until demand drastically drops, which some figure is at least 15-20 years out.

Just my 2¢.

<comment><USER9> > "Since the oil price crash, investment in exploration has gone down > dramatically, so I would argue the contrary...."

The fracking technology for oil and gas is still on it's Moore's Law curve and is getting cheaper and cheaper so in fact more and more fracking is coming on- line so that we're unlikely to see prices much above $50 per barrel.

Mar 21, 2017 [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big- oil-s...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s-plan- to-buy-into-the-shale-boom)

April 12, 2017 [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/u-s- shale...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-12/u-s-shale- investment-is-back-on-the-upswing)

<comment><USER8> Good point. It just occurred to me that the spectre of shale that you highlight also counter-incentivises exploration, perhaps more so than alternative energy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Comment might be buried... But, the problem is the baroque overlaid combinations of [seat class, fare class, FF status, standby, cash vs FF purchase, time of arrival at gate, etc.] intersecting with [connecting flts, equipment, weather, etc.] leads to a large range of predictable conditions with uncertain outcomes. E.g. only one seat remaining, who gets it: passenger needing to make intl connection on a FF ticket or cash paying high status passenger?

This is a global optimization problem that can be easily solved - but there are many cases where on the ground discretion is required [last minute aircraft change, weather delay]. Poorly paid, under trained and under motivated staff will always drop the ball in this situation.

The solution for United here is two fold 1) Increase training, comp, authority and motivation of gate agents to solve problems with minimal disruption. This used to be the case a bankruptcy ago. This setup is not likely to return due to a simple reason: cost. United in bankruptcy blew up the pension promises to some of their most experienced staff. They left.

2) The best outcome for United is to reduce the complexity of their product so that customer expectations of service align with the company's ability to deliver.

tl;dr: United's service is too complex for their gate agents to deliver. Service should be simplified.

<comment><USER11> The other issue is to stop overbooking every single flight and allow some slack to handle these unexpected situations that inevitably come up.

<comment><USER12> They will never do that, since it impacts profit.

<comment><USER13> Due to airlines' razor thin margins, this is simply impossible. That simple. Every single traditional airline will go bankrupt if it stopped overbooking.

Unfortunately it is the greed and stupidity of us consumers that drove this market into the ground. We shouldn't blame airlines. Think about this next time when you pick 'order by price' in skyscanner...

<comment><USER14> This is a scary statement that no one is willing to test it. But is it really true? I offer an alternate theory.

It won't lead to an airline bankruptcy.How about we create a cancellation fee. UA can add an incentive (not sure if one already exist) to their mileage club membership giving club member free cancellation up to 5 hours before the onboard time.

* Free cancellation up to 24 hours, and thereafter no refund plus a $30 cancellation fee.

* 50% refund for up to 24 hours

* no refund if no show

* club members get up to free cancellation and 50% refund up to 5 hours, except

* ultra gold club members free cancellation and 80% refund without cancellation fee

IDK. Someone on their business team make up a profitable number.

The truth is though, airline does this because they have a proven statistics the percentage of customers are no-show. According to [1]:

> On average, the number of people not turning up to flights is around 5 > percent, but, in certain circumstances, that number can be up to 15 percent. > Obviously, that puts airlines in an interesting position.

In the long run as airlines struggle to keep up with profit if overbooking is illegal, airlines will be forced to implement the above. [1]: [https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/11/overbooking/)

<comment><USER15> Airlines already take your money when you cancel. They overbook because so many people cancel that they have vacant seats, meaning they can sell X% of seats twice.

<comment><USER14> Yes, I am aware they take my money. But my point is to add cancellation fee to cover up the losses after making overbooking illegal. Profit will go down, but they avoid delays and other unnecessary disputes/situations.

<comment><USER16> How can they charge you that fee? All it would mean is that you won't board the plane and instead take another flight.

I have done this before because buying a new ticket cost me less than moving the existing ticket. So I just didn't check in, and didn't turn up for the flight.

<comment><USER14> The incentive for a refund.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> At the moment I wish United gets beaten up well for forced passenger removal earlier this week. However, IMO this article just tries to pile onto the "United stinks" meme and is poorly written (more emotions than facts). Some things missing (for me):

1\. When did this happen? The article makes it look like this just happened, but does not mention a date. I suspect the omission is on purpose (if so, boo!; if not, sorry, but please add event date).

2\. The fact that the guy bumped off is rich is irrelevant (and going on and on about it dulls the message).

3\. The fact that the seat the guy was downgraded was noisy (people arguing on both sides) is irrelevant.

IMO the main point is valid -- the person was first to the seat and in general whoever gets into the seat first keeps it in case of a seat collision or a duplicate ticket. He should not have been asked to free it to another passenger (who should have been downgraded instead and compensated somehow). But conflating this with unrelated issue to get on a "United stinks" meme is a cheap trick. My 2c.

<comment><USER18> "IMO the main point is valid -- the person was first to the seat and in general whoever gets into the seat first keeps it in case of a seat collision or a duplicate ticket."

I would be _extremely annoyed_ if I were in the same situation as this flyer.

However, I'm not really sure what United is supposed to do here ... according to the article they had a mechanical problem with the original plane and the replacement plane had fewer first class seats ...

So _somebody_ has to not fly in the first class seat.

Again, I would be very, very upset - but as an outsider looking in, it seems a bit childish and primitive to assume that whoever raced to the seat first gets to keep it, regardless of any other factors.

Again, United has to downgrade _somebody_ to coach in this situation - <USER2> seems reasonable that they sort that downgrade to the lowest "status" passenger.

<comment><USER17> Duplicate / messed up tickets happen and IME (I travel roughly once a month and saw this maybe 3-4 times) the "first in" is always how things are resolved. Whoever is first keeps his seat, whoever is late is reseated, gets an apology and some goodies especially if this is a downgrade / later flight. I think (but not 100% sure) this might even be codified in some airlines policies.

I saw duplicate assigned seats, I saw seats assigned in the toilet -- the plane had last row of ABC seats and lavatory where DEF seats would be. Sure enough two people show up with tickets in the DEF section. After some (weary) chuckles the folks just got squeezed into any open seats.

What is messed up about this case though was the lack of clear policy (so the person does not feel he is discriminated against), threats instead of apology and no compensation.

I am also surprised at the price: $1000 for a first class ticket on a _long_ flight is low. Was that be one of the "gate upgrades" he purchased instead of the real first class ticket? This does not absolve United at all, but at least gives some potential sanity to their choice of a purchased seat over a gate upgrade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What a lack of professionalism.

The customer even paid premium price to be in first class and instead of being notified at the gate, like any respectable airline would do, he's asked to give his seat to somebody "more important" than him when already seated.

It doesn't make any sense, if that "more important person" came later, he should be the one getting compensated by the airline especially when the problem occurred because United needed to change the plane for a smaller one.

You don't kick customer, you compensate them.

<comment><USER20> I asked United whether I could use their lounge at SFO as they cancelled my flight to Heathrow and I was going to be waiting the best part of a day for a flight to Dulles to take an alternative that would get me home 1.5 days late.

By the look on the faces of the two lounge receptionists, you'd think I'd asked if I could take a dump on their desk. "Other people have paid membership to use this lounge" I was told in a rather disdainful way. "Sure", I said, "would you like to put a value on the fact that I will never fly with you again then?", I replied...silence - they stopped talking to me and carried on doing other stuff as if I had suddenly become invisible.

No, I did not get to use the lounge, and no, I have never flown with United since - which also means that work colleagues who travel with me are also lost to them.

<comment><USER21> I have a paid United Club membership. Those lounges are already pretty full a lot of the time, and one of the biggest reasons I (and many of the other members I know) pay for it is exactly the situation you describe. When something goes wrong with a flight, it's well worth the cost of the membership to have helpful agents, minimal lines, and a nice place to relax. It's not about the free mediocre food. Having a place to be during a disruption is one of the primary value drivers, so they're not going to give that away. And if they let in everyone who had a disruption, it would be quickly overcrowded.

There's no excuse for them being rude about it, but I don't think your expectations were especially reasonable either.

<comment><USER22> I too do enjoy paying the bribe just to get an acceptable service! Oh, it's just like when visiting a poor post-Soviet country.

I am so glad that United officially incorporated this wonderful custom. No longer do I need to decide on the bribe amount on a per-case basis, I can now just pay once!

<comment><USER21> It's market segmentation. Most of the traveling public is cheapskates who will buy the lowest fare they see, no matter the consequences. This is an option for those who aren't purely driven by budget to pay for a better experience. I guarantee you that if United increased fares to hire enough staff to provide the same level of service you get in the lounge (with almost no line to talk to someone even in event of a major disruption), most people would switch to another airline.

<comment><USER22> It feels to me like you are trying really hard to justify to yourself and to everyone else paying $500 for the membership.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't develop games... But if I did I would create a game called "United flight agent". You would be standing in the aisle facing the rear of the plane. Each round you would have a goal number of passengers to forcibly remove.

You would walk up and down the aisle and punch out selected passengers. Once you had suitably subdued a passenger you click a security badge and the "Airport Rental Security" guys come and drag the passenger off.

The game timer would be a chart of United's share price. The round is over when the price hits zero.

The price could rise and fall with certain events:. A passenger stumbling back on the plane for instance.

The game would end immediately if you punched a baby - even United agents don't punch babies!

Feel free to run with it!!

<comment><USER24> These guys are already on it:

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vr-game-voluntary- disemba...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/vr-game-voluntary- disembarkment#/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm appalled by how this frontal assault on human dignity is shielded by law. What many of us learned this week is that it seems to be perfectly legal to bump off poorer or less privileged people specifically from a plane.

This is boat allocation on Titanic all over again.

<comment><USER26> No, it's _not_ legal.

Edit: See lawyer quote from tiatia.

<comment><USER27> In a way, there are two questions at work here.

The first question is whether you can have rent-a-cops throw a passenger off a plane after they have taken their seat. As I understand it, that is not legal.

The second question is about over-booking more broadly. After all, though there's a legal distinction between a passenger a second before boarding and a second after, from a customer service standpoint they're still denied the seat they were promised. Is it right that an airline can sell 310 tickets on a 300 seat plane, deliberately entering into 10 contracts it knows it cannot honour? As I understand it, that is legal. But should it be?

<comment> gm-conspiracy _Is it right that an airline can sell 310 tickets on a 300 seat plane, deliberately entering into 10 contracts it knows it cannot honour? As I understand it, that is legal. But should it be?_

I assume there are weasel words in the contract(airline ToS) to allow this.

<comment><USER28> There are full fare tickets that can be cancelled/refunded, or changed to other flights, at any time. So there's always some amount of no-shows. So they don't really "know" that they cannot honor the oversells. There's also equipment swaps to smaller aircraft, flights cancelled for mechanical issues that then moves passengers to other planes, etc.

Denied boarding is actually pretty rare, happens to about 0.1% of passengers: [https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/pu...](https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_64.html)

The other approach would be to never overbook, but if you're the only airline not overbooking, your margins will be lower. Empty seats don't make money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> He and the doctor may have a solid legal case: [http://lawnewz.com/high- profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-...](http://lawnewz.com/high- profile/united-cites-wrong-rule-for-illegally-de-boarding-passenger/)

I hope for United's sake these are anomalies and not a pattern of behavior.

<comment><USER30> > ...not a pattern of behavior.

It's actually far worse than just a "pattern of behavior", it is how United and other airlines (mostly US, but rest of the world is catching on) have deliberately structured their enterprise and the entire customer experience.

Everything revolves around "privilege". Even 20 years ago, this used to be bad. On most European airlines' flights, you just waited at the gate until your flight was called, then got in line (with some minor prioritization) then flew.

Whenever I had the misfortune of flying United (an ever rarer occasion as I wizened up to the situation and later to "codeshare" flights), half the gate was at the counter, jockeying for perks and arguing status and privilege.

This has apparently now been codified with (last I checked) 6 separate cattle lanes for boarding. Also, when I was booked on United business (a mistake), the flight attendants apparently had to try to find certain "special" elite passengers and suck up to them, in order to get little "stars" on their cards. How utterly demeaning!

Again, the US has been on the frontier of this deplorable trend, but the rest of the world is catching up, with Heathrow being the first airport I've seen with separate security lines for first class passengers. Munich caught up a little later.

To me, it looks like the airlines in general (and it looks like United in particular) are so embedded in this completely artificial conception of segregating their passengers by privilege, that results like the ones we are seeing are not anomalies and not even outliers, but the logical and maybe even unescapable consequences.

Dear Airlines: I just want to get from A to B. I don't care the slightest bit about your weird privilege system, and your efforts of forcing me to care by making "non-privileged" travel hellish just make me consider alternatives including not flying, but certainly not flying with your airline.

Oh, and it doesn't have to be that way. Quite a few years ago I was on a multi-legged Star Alliance trip, with several legs across the US getting me from Maui to a Lufthansa flight out of JFK. The penultimate stopover was Chicago, but the United flight coming in to Chicago was late and the United flight leaving didn't wait for me. I tried the United counter, but for the longest time there was simply no-one there, and when someone showed up they told me it wasn't their problem. ??

Desperate, I searched a bit and found a Lufthansa hotline. After I told my sob-story, the operator said "Oh, you're in Chicago, why do you need to go to JFK? We have a flight leaving Chicago in 3 hours, let me just rebook you on that" Said, done. It was a normal economy ticket.

Service.

Update: Check out [https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global- ser...](https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global-services/) This is a thing?!?

<comment><USER31> Unfortunately, due to the economics of airline class[0], privileged passengers account for about 70% of airline revenue.

0\. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc)

<comment><USER30> Yes. I know where it's coming from. The airlines can't actually differentiate on the basic transportation service: you're in the same noisy metal tube traveling at exactly the same speed, arriving at the same time.

There is some differentiation on the service you offer, bigger seats, maybe being able to lie flat.

But that's about it, and since that's all there is the airlines just start making shit up.

"Global Services (and generally 1K) members have their food orders taken first"[1]

Really, this is a thing? Just think about how ridiculous it is. And that it obviously has to be codified somewhere in the rule book. Along with all the other silly rules that aren't public. A friend of mine is a frequent traveller, and he told me a lot of the little tricks you have to pull to get good service.

"GS members have their own phone line, [..] the agents are based in the United States and are extremely helpful."[1]

Well, my Lufthansa agent was extremely helpful to "random joe with economy class ticket".

[1] [https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global- ser...](https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global-services/)

<comment><USER32> If I had the money, why wouldn't I want to fly first class and receive all the perks it entails? Hot towel? Don't mind if I do. Complimentary mimosa? Yes, please. I certainly can understand why some people choose to spend their money on first class tickets. The flight is more comfortable. The airlines wouldn't be able to offer these services to everyone on the plane unless they upped ticket prices. I, along with the majority of air travellers, feel comfortable enough in coach to not pay for all the extra service. I might pay for extra legroom but I understand why I'm paying extra for this service, I'm buying an extra fraction of the seats they weren't able to sell because they extended the legroom for X number of rows (plus additional money because they can).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> > _Instead, the service rep offered to refund Fearns the difference between > his first-class ticket and an economy ticket_

So he paid the cost of first class but flied economy and when they get called out on it they think all they need to do is compensate for the difference? With the way he was treated?! How can you call yourself "Customer care specialist" and think that is a way to treat customers?

<comment><USER34> Not only that, if you're downgraded and the policy is to refund the difference then you as a customer shouldn't have to ask for a refund, it should just happen. As a business, you literally could not get away with this kind of behaviour in Europe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> In Pakistan Citizen didn't let a minster on board a flight, after it got delayed due to him. Citizen abused him and he had to leave the plane. I meant United is demonstrating something even worse than would happen in our 3rd world country, and all I get it now, the 1st World only got bit of money and tech and at the end of the day, they are just as big an assholes as we are.

First they beated a customer and now another one was moved to economy in order to make room for a certain high profile.. !!! So you truly see, this is the so-called first world, racism against minorities and immigrants despite 'they' invaded Red Indians land, and now they are demonstrating same 'social class' discrimination, that's common place in the 3rd World, minus the $+Tech, and there you have even worse of the 3rd World.

</comment><comment><USER36> Can someone read this:

[https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of- carriag...](https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of- carriage.aspx)

and explain where it allows them to refuse transport to a well-behaved passenger _after boarding_?

Rule 21 seems to apply, but nothing there looks like "United can refuse to transport you 'just cause'".

I've seen lots of people claim this behavior is legal, all without a shred of evidence to back them up.

<comment><USER37> Even if it would be legal that does not make it right.

<comment><USER38> I don't think that this was being alluded to, just a question of how this is supposedly legal, since lots of people are stating that it is without anything to back it up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> By the way, in the case of Dr Dao it was also not overbooking that caused him to get bumped off, but airline's assignment of lower priority to him than someone else. Just like in the parent article.

There were other misreportings as well, not to mention that some news outlets ran character assassination stories and almost nobody emphasised that Dr Dao was a senior.

The best piece I've seen deconstructing this is [http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger- remo...](http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal- reporting-management-fail.html)

</comment><comment><USER40> The crux of the article, for me, is this:

"What United and all companies need to do is to train and empower workers to deal with specific issues as they arise," she said. "Don't just follow whatever is written in your policies."

Unfortunately that's so often the case - one may as well be conversing with a robot in many customer service situations. I can only imagine it's just as frustrating for the disempowered service reps.

<comment><USER41> Empowering local service reps often leads to worse things. The cases where a Muslim passenger or whatever was forced to leave because another passenger complained wasn't written into any policy, it was the result of local crew exercising their discretion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Jeff Bezos' annual letter, released yesterday, had a good line (one of many) that immediately made me think of this United situations and broadly the crazy rules we've created for air travel and the culture that surrounds it all:

"It's always worth asking, do we own the process or does the process own us? In a Day 2 company, you might find it's the second."

</comment><comment><USER43> Been flying for 25 years, 1.5 million miles total, most of that on United. US airlines have been through hell over the last 16 years. Bankruptcies, union battles, fierce competition, and not to mention, the real threat that someone could blow up or intentionally crash the plane they're flying, all contributed to a mentality that the employees have to stick together to survive.

 _The end result is that US airline employees see their loyalty to each other as more important than customer service._

This mentality enables the micro-selling, endless class stratification, rigid authority and the generally unpleasant demeanor of staff. They're really _not_ friendly in the US, and strikingly different from, say, Asia-based carriers.

<comment><USER44> > US airlines have been through hell over the last 16 years. Bankruptcies, > union battles, fierce competition, and not to mention, the real threat that > someone could blow up or intentionally crash the plane they're flying, all > contributed to a mentality that the employees have to stick together to > survive.

So you say US market is more competitive than European and have more strikes than European airlines and less risk? I call that very poor excuse compared to European airlines, which work under harsher conditions than American, but still keep level of service higher than American airlines (of course both are inferior to Asian carriers).

<comment><USER43> I said nothing about European airlines.

But I've wondered how much worse it would have been here if Ryan Air or Easy Jet had moved in.

<comment><USER44> is there any reason to believe it could be worse than status quo?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Actually, the Obama administration allowed United to take over Continental when we already had so few competing airlines in this country as it is, so Obama should be blamed. We need more competition, not less.

With the consolidation of airlines, it is much harder than it was to say you don't want to fly with them anymore and they know it.

The case with the passenger being dragged off the plane was not regular United but some lower-cost airline that has a close business relationship with United.

The CEO should have set up an on-call executive that can quickly deal with situations like these two cases. It would not be very hard to do.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have a good story to tell about El-Al (Israeli) airlines and US Air.

I was on a connecting flight on US Air to Newark to take El-Al. The US Air flight left late and arrived late. Israeli security escorted me and 2 other passengers onto the El-Al plane to Tel Aviv but the luggage did not make it.

El-Al opens all bags that don't travel with the passenger in a bomb chamber which is located at JFK. So it took 3 or 4 days to get my luggage. El-Al gave me $75 even though it was not their fault. US Air paid suit, shoes, etc. that I had to purchase.

</comment><comment><USER45> Time for regulating the oligopoly of the airline industry. Obviously the safety of passengers can not be ensured anymore.

[https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should- go...](https://medium.com/@thisTenqyuLife/united-airlines-should-go-out-of- business-325e9983e51f)

<comment><USER46> >Obviously the safety of passengers can not be ensured anymore.

Let's not be dramatic. Actual airline safety issues that lead to horrific deaths are not being discussed here. This is just piss poor customer service that could be encountered on any property (e.g. hotels that have overbooked, etc).

<comment><USER47> Trying to remember the last news story about someone being dragged out of a hotel room they've already checked into.

<comment><USER48> Trying to remember the last news story about someone being asked to leave their hotel room, refusing to do so, having police called, and continuing to refuse to do so.

People being kicked out of hotel rooms because of scheduling errors does happen. It's pretty rare.

<comment><USER47> I'd be surprised were it _legal_ to have the police drag someone out of a room they've paid for and been checked into, merely because another guest wants that room.

Sure, you can ask, but on what legal basis do you have to apply violence?

<comment><USER49> The hotel is private property. If the owners of the property ask you to leave and you don't, you are trespassing.

<comment><USER50> I doubt it's quite that simple. It's private property that serves the public. We've had court rulings saying you can't, e.g., refuse to rent your wedding venue to gay couples. If you make accommodations available to the public, there are legal responsibilities that go along with that.

I don't know what the specific regulations are surrounding hotel rooms, but certainly they're not "private property" in the same way that your house is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So two days ago my 2-month old Dell UltraSharp monitor broke with flickering and some cosmetic damage. I reached out to Amazon rep because I bought from there. The repr and I spoke and did some testing. Eventually he said he would help me make an exception by sending me a replacement without any fees, a pre- paid return label, and do a two-day guarantee shipment, despite the return window has already passed (it was April 6th, last week).

I got my new monitor today, and I am happy.

The repr said because of my purchase history. I am a good customer to them, someone who have bought probably couple thousand dollars worth of goods from Amazon over the years.

AWS itself also offered to eliminate all of the charges on my account after a huge spike on billing (which is believed to be the results of network attacks) under no questions.

This is how you build a $300B company. You take constant short-term losses over long-term gains.

United Airline has a long fucking way to learn how to treat its customers. If customer B's flight had a mechanical failure, should do this:

UA: "Sorry, we have a mechanical problem, do you wish to take the next flight? We will offer you a voucher."

B: "No. I need to get there on time."

UA: "Do you wish to take an economy seat? Our first-class is full."

B: "No. I am a priority seating customer." (<\--- does this shit even exist?)

UA: "I understand. We will ask if anyone on the current flight is willing to give up."

UA: "HEY PEOPLE ANYONE WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR SEAT FOR X AMOUNT OF MONEY AND INCENTIVES?"

UA: "Okay no one. Increasing. We still have a few minutes left to auction a seat for an economy seat swap."

UA: "Sorry Sir / Madam. No one is willing and the flight is destined to leave now, so we can't hold up the 365 passengers onboard. We are sorry for your inconvenience, we will see if other airlines have seats available and we can help arrange a flight for you based on your continued support of United Airlines."

Now either B take it or leave it. Done. One airplane's delay is a delay for other 100 flights waiting to leave the airport on time.

Win 100 customers over 1 customer.

This is grade-school manner, fucking grade-school manner. Change your policy now if you are so serious about good customer service and fear of law suits.

Actually now I come to think of it, airlines should build an auction/seat auction app.

</comment><comment><USER51> If I paid full-fare and I'm already seated, who could _possibly_ be more important than me?

<comment><USER52> on United -- it was almost certainly a Global Services passenger. Those folks get whatever they want.

<comment><USER53> What's a Global Services passenger?

<comment><USER54> It's United's secret top tier frequent flyer program. They get their ass kissed for literally everything, even above full-fare revenue passengers. There's no published requirements for it or information about it - here's the closest thing: [https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global- ser...](https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/top-perks-united-global-services/)

Fun anecdote: a few months ago I booked a Star Alliance ticket and had a United segment ORD-EWR. I was the only (!) non-upgraded revenue first class passenger on the flight according to the gate agent, but boarded the plane 33rd, thanks to "Global Services" passengers (including the ones in coach) getting to board before me. They also got to order food first, so I was left with the leftover food item, and also got their drink orders and other attention lavished on them first, despite the fact that all the other Global Services passengers in F were flying on free upgrades to F instead of paying for it.

Note that "they got to order first" meant that they literally just skipped over me when taking food/drink orders and when I asked what they were doing the FA brusquely said "We'll get to you in a moment SIR!"

<comment><USER53> That website is almost upsetting:

"The biggest benefit to Global Services is the excellent service that is given to those with the status. They receive what can only be described as the royal treatment. Below, some examples:[...]

Irritated with a flight attendant or gate agent? Complain about it and he/she will be reprimanded by HR."

So if you are a GS passenger you can literally get people reprimanded by their own HR? Fab.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Forcing passengers to relinquish seats they've already sat down in is clearly a terrible policy. Once you're in your seat you should be "locked in", except in exceptional circumstances. Pulling someone out of a seat has a much higher emotional (and PR) cost than denying someone boarding in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER56> > Fearns requested a full refund for his flight from Kauai and asked for > United to make a $25,000 donation to the charity of his choice. This is how > rich guys do it.

It bugs me that so much of the emphasis in this article is on the idea that they _dared_ to do this to someone wealthy.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Note: this is a different guy. After just a few days after the previous fuckup, they pull the _exact same shit_ AGAIN. Unbelievable...

<comment><USER57> Although the article doesn't give a specific date, it seems this incident actually happened first, but is only now making it to press.

> _He had to fly to Hawaii last week_

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, looks like it. Still only a few days apart.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Flying always makes me wish workers of the world really would unite...

That being said, the way this article is written makes me want to kick the author off of a plane while in flight.

"Fearns requested a full refund for his flight from Kauai and asked for United to make a $25,000 donation to the charity of his choice. This is how rich guys do it."

This is how rich guys do it? Really? ugh.

</comment><comment><USER59> User surly UX. Was going to book an impromptu multi-legged trip between San Francisco, Iowa and Arizona.

American Airlines quoted a price, but the only available seats cost (around) $33 - $58 extra for each flight -- total was $200 extra. Bait and switch? So, I switched to Delta.

But Delta's antique web design wouldn't allow a change. So, I attempted to talk to a Human. Voice menu was a bit schizoid: transitioning from voice to a touch-only menu. Love the response: "your selection was invalid" Who designs these things? A Lost in Space fan? [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWwOJlOI1nU)

Then I get to the part where it says: "You may choose to have us call you back ... or stay on hold ... wait time is over 3 hours". So, I cancelled.

</comment><comment><USER60> United has an interesting way of dealing with elite status these days... sure you still have silver, gold, platinum but then you have the real elite flyers.

You might be the first person in boarding group one, but you'll still be eclipsed by the 1K / Global Services / Polaris flyers who are the true elite both in status and in total dollar spend. They don't even bother to wait in line - they just show up when boarding starts and are shuffled to the front of the queue (along with a friend if they want), no questions asked.

Based on those layers it wouldn't particularly surprise me if one day as a mere Gold flyer I get bumped for higher tier elite. United has made it clear total dollar spend is how they judge the true status of flyers.

</comment><comment><USER61> This getting ridiculous.

The removal was awful, and they did deserve all the bad press. This article however is just trying to ride the wave to get some clicks.

There are millions of people who travel every day. Stuff like this must happen hundreds of times every day on pretty much every airline.

<comment><USER62> > Stuff like this must happen hundreds of times every day

I think that's the problem.

<comment><USER61> It's bound to happen. The percentage must be 0.something.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> While this might or might not be technically legal, what shocks me is the response you'll see on online fora, that passengers should just shut up and comply, and that failure to do so is childish.

These posts are often at great length, and laden with appeals to authority. Some might be trolls. But others appear to be by people who genuinely value an environment where the lowliest airline employee, no matter how poor their judgement, no matter how absent their discretion, is more right than any customer. Munoz's email to employees, of which I've not seen a retraction, takes this line wholeheartedly. It's a trait that suffuses the industry. Who the hell ARE these people?

<comment><USER64> FWIW this attitude is the one taught by primary school teachers in the UK "do what the teacher tells you straight away without question" and it's evil. I can see how such an attitude gets then reinforced and survives in adults, "that's what 'good' pupils do".

<comment><USER65> This is taught so that small kids don't carry on doing things that might be dangerous (kids don't know the difference between dangerous and annoying, so a blanket rule is more sensible here). It's not evil, it's damn sensible. Please feel free to critisise the continuation of this teaching to older kids who can think critically about what they're doing, but don't ask for primary school kids to _not_ do what the accountable adult is telling them.

<comment><USER64> No, demanding doing things without question is truly an insidious evil. Even a 5 year old has faculty enough to question some blanket commands.

T: "everyone sit down now, please"

P: "my chair has wet paint on it Sir, do I have to sit down too?"

Should the teacher say "always do as I say first time" next or should they acknowledge they were operating on imperfect knowledge of the situation and modify the command? This is only slightly contrived, some pupils will sit in the paint through fear of the teacher (some, occasionally, through over- bearing desire to please the teacher).

Always allowing a command to be questioned develops critical thinking and encourages creativity whilst demanding pupils use good communications. It's harder to handle with a group, for sure, but worth it IMO.

Questioning a command in order to get a reason for complying does not equate to "not doing what an accountable adult says". "Because I say so" should be the last fallback, not the first and only reason available.

It requires humility. Being corrected by a 7yo, say, in front of a group can feel humiliating; but it's more important to do what is right than it is to instill a misplaced sense of obedience as being the highest virtue.

This allows for the fallibility of the accountable adult and respects - <USER3> develops - the faculty of the child(ren).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> So, this is a guy who apparently wasn't VIP enough:

> Fearns, 59, is president of TriPacific Capital Advisors, an Irvine > investment firm that handles more than half a billion dollars in real estate > holdings on behalf of public pension funds.

</comment><comment><USER67> This is just golden...

"placing him in the middle seat between a married couple who were in the midst of a nasty fight and refused to be seated next to each other."

Crews don't even try to move them to be seated next to each others.

<comment><USER68> You're advocating for the flight crew to instruct a passenger to relinquish their seat after they have already sat in it so that a first class customer could have it? I think it's safe to say that that should be an action of last recourse...

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> This happened to me once with Delta Airlines a few years back. I was ticketed for an upgrade to first class (via Medallion status), but when I went to board I was told that the stewardess had given the seat to another customer and I was moved to a middle seat in the back. As someone who tends to be non- confrontational and the fact that it was a short flight, I just went with it. I did complain when I got back via their feedback form and they compensated me with 7500 miles, which I now realize was woefully inadequate, but I didn't have much recourse.

</comment><comment><USER70> These things don't matter and the airlines know it. People will continue to fly. I guarantee that a year from now if United is the most convenient flight to a place that guy needs to go, he will fly United.

We simply aren't in the "free market competition" will fix it zone with air travel. I hate air travel and do everything I can to avoid it for work. Most people think I'm crazy. Why wouldn't you jump at the chance to fly to an obscure town in India on the company dime!?!?!?

So do not expect this to affect anything unless the government gets involved

</comment><comment><USER71> I had to re-check (twice) if the news in the satire column. I literally cannot believe you would kick someone paying your company $1000

</comment><comment><USER72> United CEO Oscar Munoz was formerly a top executive at railroad CSX. It is any wonder that he treats his passengers as FREIGHT, not as PEOPLE?

My wife and I try to fly Southwest whenever possible. They are the only airline (perhaps the only transportation organization) whose employees actually care about their customers' travel experiences.

</comment><comment><USER73> If that happened to me, I'd be incandescent with rage—and I'd sue at the first opportunity. I can only hope Fearns makes the airline pay many, many times over.

It seems the only thing these carpetbaggers understand are lawsuits where they lose.

Its CEO deserves the boot—it happened on his watch!

</comment><comment><USER74> Somehow I feel like this all comes back to banking and the finance industry. The issues in these cases all come down to money. They overbook flights to maximize resource (plane) allocation. This one was a case of having to swap in a smaller plane. It all comes down to how expensive airplanes are and the fierce competition among carriers that leads to a system with little redundancy. But think about that - how can there be such intense competition in an industry dealing with such high-priced equipment? Granted, a solution to this pinch is probably going to mean higher average fares. But I'm starting to look toward a much bigger picture to see how this comes about. Any thoughts on this?

</comment><comment><USER75> The air travel industry is a leading indicator of creeping authoritarianism in our society. I'm very glad that this story is getting the kind of media coverage that it is. This needs to be examined and resisted.

</comment><comment><USER76> I've traveled on flights frequently for over a decade, and I've never had an airline refuse to seat me for a flight I had a ticket for. I don't use frequent-flyer, and just buy the cheapest tickets available on Expedia. The only saving grace I can think of is that I always get to the airport way before anyone else does. Have I just been getting lucky all this time? Short of being a frequent flyer or buying expensive tickets, is there any way I can make sure I don't get bumped off a plane I have tickets for?

<comment><USER77> Not with United. I had two flights in a row that I was all checked in with boarding passes on my phone, and then they bumped me due to an "equipment" change the night before my flight. In one case I was able to get a new seat immediately and re-checkin, in the other I had to show up at the airport four hours before my flight and beg for one of the few unassigned seats. Then I got to watch hysteria at the gate from all the people that got bumped... I've never had any other airline try to bump me at all, let alone after checking in.

(Just to add, I think the "changing" equipment claim is a common excuse they make up. It allows them to overbook and bump people without having to pay the US mandated fees to each person who gets bumped. In at least one of these cases they replaced the original plane with a plane of the same exact type, but claimed "it might have a different seat layout so it counts as an equipment change".)

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> People usually like to interact with other people for that "human touch", and even quote it as a reason why they won't lose their job to automation.

I think I would rather interact with a robot than with a crew that has procedures so rigid (and dumb) that they are not allowed to have empathy.

I think that's sadly representative of the corporate mindset brought to the extreme. The consumer is not king anymore, it's a product. When did this start? I wonder.

</comment><comment><USER79> I wonder if this is a staged attempt (on the part of United, if not also the passenger) to prove that the prior instance was not about race or class (e.g. economy vs. first). "See, we do it to everyone!" Could this latest behavior be used as defensive evidence in a court case alleging discrimination?

<comment><USER80> Nah. Apparently this is a previous incident that was ignored because no one had a viral video with a blooding client. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a HUGE amount of stupidity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> I think the "higher priority" traveler might have been a FAM -- an air marshal -- who was assigned to the flight at the last minute. Even more so if he had an aisle seat.

</comment><comment><USER82> Either this is awful reporting or I missed it. Did the event described here occur before or after they dragged the doctor off the plane?

</comment><comment><USER83> Incredible how loss of temper is reaching any space of society these days. Feels like a worldwide fever.

</comment><comment><USER73> If that happened to me, I'd be incandescent with rage—and I'd sue at the first opportunity. I can only hope Fearns makes the airline pay many, many times over.

It seems the only thing these carpetbaggers understand are lawsuits where they lose.

Its CEO deserves the boot—it happened on his watch!

</comment><comment><USER84> Some people are getting hit with paywalls. So here is the full text of the article:

It's hard to find examples of worse decision-making and customer treatment than United Airlines having a passenger dragged from an overbooked plane. But United's shabby treatment of Geoff Fearns, including a threat to place him in handcuffs, comes close.

Fearns, 59, is president of TriPacific Capital Advisors, an Irvine investment firm that handles more than half a billion dollars in real estate holdings on behalf of public pension funds. He had to fly to Hawaii last week for a business conference.

Fearns needed to return early so he paid about $1,000 for a full-fare, first- class ticket to Los Angeles. He boarded the aircraft at Lihue Airport on the island of Kauai, took his seat and enjoyed a complimentary glass of orange juice while awaiting takeoff.

Then, as Fearns tells it, a United employee rushed onto the aircraft and informed him that he had to get off the plane.

"I asked why," he told me. "They said the flight was overfull."

Fearns, like the doctor at the center of that viral video from Sunday night, held his ground. He was already on the plane, already seated. He shouldn't have to disembark.

"That's when they told me they needed the seat for somebody more important who came at the last minute," Fearns said. "They said they have a priority list and this other person was higher on the list than me."

Apparently United had some mechanical troubles with the aircraft scheduled to make the flight. So the carrier swapped out that plane with a slightly smaller one with fewer first-class seats.

Suddenly it had more first-class passengers than it knew what to do with. So it turned to its "How to Screw Over Customers" handbook and determined that the one in higher standing — more miles flown, presumably — gets the seat and the other first-class passenger, even though he's also a member of the frequent-flier program, gets the boot.

"I understand you might bump people because a flight is full," Fearns said. "But they didn't say anything at the gate. I was already in the seat. And now they were telling me I had no choice. They said they'd put me in cuffs if they had to."

You couldn't make this up if you tried.

It shouldn't make any difference where a passenger is seated or how much he or she paid for their ticket. But you have to admire the sheer chutzpah of United putting the arm on a full-fare, first-class traveler. If there's anybody whose business you want to safeguard and cultivate, it's that person.

So how could United possibly make things worse? Not to worry. This is the airline that knows how to add insult to injury.

A United employee, responding to Fearns' complaint that he shouldn't have to miss the flight, compromised by downgrading him to economy class and placing him in the middle seat between a married couple who were in the midst of a nasty fight and refused to be seated next to each other.

"They argued the whole way back," Fearns recalled. "Nearly six hours. It was a lot of fun."

Back in Southern California, he consulted his lawyer and then wrote to United's chief executive, Oscar Munoz, who commended airline workers after the passenger-dragging incident "for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right."

Fearns requested a full refund for his flight from Kauai and asked for United to make a $25,000 donation to the charity of his choice. This is how rich guys do it.

He received an email back from a United "corporate customer care specialist" apologizing that Fearns apparently had an unpleasant experience. But, no, forget about a refund.

As for that charitable donation, what are you kidding? A hard no on that.

Instead, the service rep offered to refund Fearns the difference between his first-class ticket and an economy ticket — about a week later, as if that wasn't the first thing they should do in a situation like this — and to give him a $500 credit for a future trip on the airline.

"Despite the negative experience, we hope to have your continued support," the rep concluded. "Your business is especially important to us and we'll do our utmost to make your future contacts with United satisfactory in every respect."

I reached out to United and asked if anyone cared to comment on Fearns' adventure in corporate catastrophe. No one got back to me.

Julia Underwood, a business professor at Azusa Pacific University, said United's actions in both the dragged-off-the-plane episode and with Fearns reflect a coldhearted mindset utterly devoid of compassion for customers.

"They're so locked into their policies, there's no room for empathy," she said.

As a result, Underwood said, situations that should be manageable spiral out of control and result in unnecessarily messy PR disasters.

"What United and all companies need to do is to train and empower workers to deal with specific issues as they arise," she said. "Don't just follow whatever is written in your policies."

I couldn't agree more. United is neck-deep in trouble this week because its workers are clearly out of their depth in handling out-of-the-ordinary events. You have to think someone on the flight crew would have been able to step up, if given the trust and authority to do so by the carrier.

Fearns said three different members of the crew on his middle-seat, economy- class return to L.A. apologized for how he was treated in Hawaii. But they said they were unable to do anything.

He's now considering a lawsuit against United — and he certainly has the resources to press his case.

I asked if he'll ever fly United again.

Fearns could only laugh. "Are you kidding?"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Original title is "United passenger threatened with handcuffs to make room for 'higher-priority' traveler", but it's too long for HN so I had to shorten it.

</comment><comment><USER85> Browsing that on firefox on mobile was terrible, about part way down the page a fullscreen video overlay appears that I couldn't work out how to close.

<comment><USER44> ublock origin?</comment></comment>


Windows Must Be Restarted for the Changes to Take Effect - <AUTHOR> http://waffle.wootest.net/2014/02/09/windows-must-be-restarted-for-the-changes-to-take-effect/

<comment><USER2> This is the best written, best argued, and most relevant of the Nadella "advice" articles. Not the ones in the major tech news, from the big commentator names, this.

The problems the post outlines are the ones behind the decline in Microsoft's desktop business and increasing irrelevance. And they are correctable. Two examples:

      * Sticking the word "Windows" at the end of things that weren't Windows wasn't a good idea.

      * Sticking the word "Live" to things that are poor online services, or that are so-so desktop programs that you choose not to ship with Windows and that you end up cancelling wasn't a good idea.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, that's very kind. As you say, it all hinges on every single one of their big mistakes being correctable now and avoidable in the future. Microsoft doesn't have to figure out how to be Apple or Google or what have you; it has to figure out what products they're missing and what the products they already do have has to do in the year 2014 to be relevant. That's not completely different from what they did in the year 2004, but it won't be solved by serving up what they had in 2004 either, nor by skipping to what they think is the endgame.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is HN reading? - <AUTHOR>

What have you read / are currently reading this month? Leave suggestions for others to read as well!
-Read-
Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? - Philip K. Dick
Babel-17 - Samuel R. Delany
Bloodchild - Octavia E. Butler
-Reading-
The Dragons Of Eden - Carl Sagan <comment><USER2> _Invention by Design; How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing_ by Henry Petroski:

[http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Design-Engineers-Thought- Thi...](http://www.amazon.com/Invention-Design-Engineers-Thought- Thing/dp/0674463684/)

Previously, I've read his book _Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering_ :

[http://www.amazon.com/Design-Paradigms-Histories-Judgment- En...](http://www.amazon.com/Design-Paradigms-Histories-Judgment- Engineering/dp/0521466490/)

I can't speak on the former yet, but the latter is excellent, and provides a framework for analyzing failures in engineering judgment (regardless of whether you're talking about bridges or software). I've also been working through _The Little Schemer_.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Count_of_Monte_Cristo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Count_of_Monte_Cristo) \- currently Books of Joe Hill - latest, I've actually enjoyed them very much.

</comment><comment><USER4> Twisted Network Programming Essentials [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025016.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920025016.do)

Job Reconnaissance [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780124166011.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/9780124166011.do)

FFcP for Mandolin [http://jazzmando.com/ffcp_studies.shtml](http://jazzmando.com/ffcp_studies.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER5> The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins, [http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion- Richard-Dawkins/dp/06...](http://www.amazon.com/The-God-Delusion-Richard- Dawkins/dp/0618918248) My Brief History - Stephen Hawking, [http://www.amazon.com/My-Brief-History-Stephen- Hawking/dp/03...](http://www.amazon.com/My-Brief-History-Stephen- Hawking/dp/0345535286) Both real eye openers

</comment><comment><USER6> Currently Frank Herbert's "Dune", which is quite good from what I've read so far.

My problem is, I can never actually muster up the motivation to sit down and read it.

I'm coming to Dune from "Fahrenheit 451". I'd give it 8/10, I've found it's a little slow to kick off, but the plot soon picks up.

</comment><comment><USER7> Currently, re-reading this one. Seldom have I dog-eared so many pages or underlined passages. The Way of the Seal> [http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-SEAL- Warrior-Succeed/dp/162145...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-SEAL-Warrior- Succeed/dp/1621451097)

</comment><comment><USER8> I think someone had set up a Goodreads account or group for HN readers.

I'm trying to find it but no luck so far (I'm at work, no Goodreads available here).

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pelevin) He is the best russian writer.

</comment><comment><USER10> Currently working my way through all the Dean Koontz books.

Also recently read the Sports Gene which was good.

</comment><comment><USER11> Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Zero to One by Peter Thiel

</comment><comment><USER12> Memcached source code currently</comment>


3 Things Startups Shouldn't Worry About (And 3 Things They Should) - <AUTHOR> http://earlygrowthfinancialservices.com/3-things-startups-shouldnt-worry-3-things/?utm_source=EGFS+Newsletter+March_5_2014&utm_campaign=EGFS+Newsletter&utm_medium=email

<comment><AUTHOR> I posted this up because my startup is definitely guilty.

1\. Startups worry about funding. You should worry about building traction. 2\. Startups worry about their ability to scale. You should worry about creating a viable business model, meaningful milestones, and a scalable infrastructure. 3\. Startups worry about creating buzz. Startups should worry about creating a growth engine to open the sales funnel, accelerate the pipeline, and build their customer base.

I generally agree with the article's three points.

But to point 1: how can traction help if we can't pay the bills? This is our biggest struggle. We are considering shelving our onboarding efforts to focus on fundraising. Intuitively I know that that's a huge mistake, but fundraising creates this big fear of failure. It seems like a chicken and egg situation.

Advice?</comment>